It’s been a crazy spring since starting back to class. These are my last two classes before my Practicum starts and I’m juggling crazy things right now! So much for rejecting the craziness… I am trying isolate my time better and it helps, but life is still crazy!
So, I had to share this posting because it’s just out there! This is some abstract thinking on my part. I have to re-read it just be sure it makes sense. Dog gone Social Constructionism!
Language is commonly understood to be more than just the words that are spoken by an individual or shared in a conversation. It also includes the non-verbal language such as tone, inflection, emphasis and the numerous ways your body communicates. Social Constructionism takes the understanding of language to another step where language is presented as a subjective knowing of “… their world and in their knowing simultaneously to construct it.” (Becvar & Becvar, 2009, p.91) This is to say that reality and the language we use to communicate that reality exist only as we understand them to exist. That understanding of reality and language is vulnerable to conditions that exist in the various relationships in one’s life. Language is culturally understood through socialization and adopts a shared value and a collective reality that exists only in that culture. (Becvar & Becvar, 2009)
Just as language exists as a cultural construct, the individual or “self” can also be described as such. In Social Constructionism, reality is created through a social understanding as well as a individual interpretation based on that individual’s social existence. As such, the “self” is understood to be based on that same premise where it is interpreted based on individual and collective interpretations. Hoffman describes the “self” as a story and follows up commenting that “…the big deception is the biological package…” (Hoffman, 1990, p.3) These points together are summarized well by Rober where he comments on the philosophical works of Martin Buber stating that “… distinguishing the I-Thou relationship from the more self-centered, utilitarian I-It relationship … [describes] how the growth of a person is not accomplished in relation to oneself, but instead in the dialogical relation between the I and the other.” (Rober, 2005, p.386)
Personal reflections
Examining myself not as a static person, but more as a state of being at this moment in time is pretty abstract for me. I certainly agree that I am a collection of all that existed before me, but I just don’t commonly view myself in that manner. It really requires me to almost think of myself in the third person. I believe in the context of therapy that this line of thinking may be useful and perhaps even necessary in order to transcend certain limitations, but to consider myself in this manner on a daily basis will require effort that I have yet to sanction as preferable.
Defining my language as it relates to my individual culture and experience is not that far off from where I consider it normally. I’ve experienced several linguistic transitions in my lifetime. My first transition was when I made a conscious decision as a young adult to not use curse words in my everyday conversations. This amounted to me being more aware of my language and how it perpetuates certain behaviors and feelings. When I returned to school to finish my Bachelor’s degree in 2004 I asked my English composition instructor how I might improve my vocabulary and use of the English language for everyday use. She advised me to read classic books; a lot of them. So, I took it another step and began renting audio books from my local library and over the course of a couple of years I read every classic (published prior to 1970) book I could rent. What I found by the time I reached graduate school in 2006 was that I absolutely loved language and composition. I enjoyed expressing myself in a meaningful and detailed manner. Even writing technical documents at work became more enjoyable. This simple advice that my instructor shared with me allowed me to tap into a new and gratifying experience that I continue to enjoy every day. So, my language or way of speaking is not something I read in an instruction manual and then proceeded to begin writing the way that I do now. It is as mentioned above, “a dialogical relation between [me]… and the other.”
Adam T
References
Becvar, D.S., & Becvar, R.J. (2009). Family therapy: A systemic integration (7thed). Boston: Pearson, Allyn, and Bacon. ISBN: 9780205609239.
Hoffman, L. (1990). Constructing realities: An art of lenses. Family Process, 29(1), 1-12. Blackwell Publishing
Peter Rober. (2005). Family therapy as a dialogue of living persons: A perspective inspired by Bakhtin Voloshinov, and Shotter. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 31(4), 385-97. Retrieved May 4, 2010, from ProQuest Medical Library. (Document ID: 914573911).
